1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that on 22.06.2018 he purchased one Maruti Ertiga VDI from O.P. No. 1 vide invoice no. 001/VSL/18000126 and registered the same vide Regd. No. OD-33-T-1666 with consideration of Rs. 9,81,950/- with an assurance  to avail proper service from O.P. No. 2.  It is alleged that he found some noise sound inside from the engine and no indication mark for oil leakage, for which he brought his vehicle to the workshop of O.P. No. 2, wherein the job card was prepared vide no. JC18009435 dated 22.03.2019 and paid there for Rs. 24,964/- which include labour charges. It is also alleged that on June, 2018, he lifted his vehicle to the service center of O.P. No. 2 due to problems in engine and 5^th gear and paid Rs. 42,176/- which  include labour charge of Rs. 9,025/-.  It is also alleged that on November, 2018, he again lifted his vehicle to the O.P. No. 2 for service, wherein Job Card was issued vide no. JC18006100 dated 21.11.2018 and paid Rs. 10,406/- which includes 1,771/-.  Further it is alleged that on 20.05.2019, while he was proceeding towards Junagarh, he found the same problems in engine and gear and after contacting the O.P. No. 2, he lifted his vehicle to their garage, where it was found that the gear box and hub was damaged and the O.P. No. 2 demanded Rs. 50,000/- towards repair. Thus with the allegations of demanding labour charges under warranty, showing deficiency in service, he filed this case with a prayer to replace the engine with a new one, to refund labour charges illegally taken from him and Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and costs to him.

2. The O.P. No. 1 though received the notice from the Fora which was sent through Regd. Post vide R.L. No. RO909974746IN dated 04.06.2019, did not choose to appear nor filed their counter nor also participated in the hearing, as such we lost opportunities to hear from them.              
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 appeared through their Ld. Counsel who filed the counter version admitting the service provide by them but denied the allegations contending that as per complaint of complainant, they inspected the alleged vehicle and found that due to outside impact, the oil chamber was cracked and the oil was drained out from the gear box, due to which the noise was coming from the gear box.  Further they have contended that since the complainant has not maintained the vehicle as per the warranty manual and due to lack of maintenance by the complainant, the problem occurred and with other contentions, showing their no liability, they have prayed to dismiss the case.

4. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 3 appeared through their Ld. Counsel, filed their counter admitting the sale of alleged vehicle to the complainant but denied the allegations contending that as per mandatory service scheduled, the vehicle had to be serviced within time period and within due kilometers, and since the complainant has been neglect and careless in carrying out the scheduled maintainance service as per warranty manual, the warranty condition makes the warranty forfeited.  Further it is contended that the alleged vehicle was brought to the workshop on 19.02.2019 at around 38,496 kilometers for carrying out the body repair under insurance claim and the same was confirmed by the complainant during insurance claim.  And with other contentions, showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case.

5. Parties have filed respective documents in support of their submissions.

6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the alleged vehicle was serviced on many occasions by the O.P. No. 2.  The allegations of complainant is that during warranty period, the O.P. No. 2 has illegally taken labour charges, which they supposed not to do, whereas the contentions of O.P. No. 2 is that as per requirement and demand of complainant, they have carried out the repair works which are not covered under any warranty period.Further the allegations of complainant is that on many occasion the vehicle was faced many problems which is only due to the defective engine, whereas the contentions of O.P. No. 3 is that due to own negligence and improper maintainance the damaged caused to alleged vehicle and the defects in the vehicle found after running at around 38,496 kilometers, as such it cannot be said that the engine is having inherent manufacturing defects.

7. On perusal f record, it is ascertained that the only allegations of complainant is that during warranty period, the O.P. No. 2 has illegally taken labour charges on many occasions which is violation of warranty conditions and also the engine of the alleged vehicle is having inherent manufacturing defects.  In this connection, we have gone through the service job sheets filed by the complainant issued by the O.P. No. 2 i.e.

1. Job Card No. JC18009435 dated 23.03.2019 demanded repairs of Rs. 8,060/-
2. Job Card No. JC18006100 dated 21.11.2018 demanded Repairs  of Rs. 451/- and scheduled service of Rs. 1,320/-
3. Job Card No. JC19000469 dated 18.04.2019 demanded repair of Rs. 1,771/-

From the above job cards, it is clearly observed that the O.P. No. 2 has the taken labour charges as per the requirements and demand of the complainant which are not covered under terms and conditions of warranty policy except the job card no. JC18006100 dated 21.11.2018, wherein the O.P. No. 2 has taken demanded repairs of Rs. 451/- and scheduled service of Rs. 1,320/-.  It is ascertained from the Owner’s Manual and Service Booklet captioned as “Inspection and  Maintainance”, during warranty period no scheduled

labour charged will be charged against the vehicle.  Hence, we feel, the O.P. No. 2 should not charge the scheduled charge of Rs. 1,320/- against the alleged vehicle and charging such amount is clear violation of terms and conditions of warranty policy, which is clear case of deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No. 2.

Further allegations of complainant regarding that the engine is having inherent manufacturing defect.  We have gone through the service job sheets and found that all the services carried out by the O.P. No. 2 only towards repair of gear box but nowhere in those job sheets, it is mentioned that the services were carried out towards repair of engine as a whole.  And the complainant paid the service fees only towards repair of gear box and related to its parts.  Hence we do not feel the engine of the alleged vehicle is having manufacturing defects.  Further it is seen from the job sheets, that the job sheets shows that the alleged vehicle was run for different kilometers on different occasions.  Had the engine is having manufacturing defects, then how it can be possible to run a vehicle in such conditions.  Hence we do not think that the engine of the alleged vehicle is having manufacturing defects.  In this connection, we have gone through the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd. versus Giraj Kishore Basan and others And Pushpanjali Motors India Pvt. Ltd versus Giraj Koshore Bansal and Another, wherein Hon’ble Commission has held that “Total replacement of vehicle cannot be ordered when vehicle has run for more than 50,000 KMs”.  Considering the above discussions and verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission, we do not think that the engine of the alleged vehicle is required for its replacement with a new one.  However, it is also observed that all the services are carried out only for repair of gear box set, although the repair was carried out for several times, considering the job sheets and submissions of parties, we think that the complainant is only entitled for replacement of only gear box set.

8. Considering the above discussions, we think complainant is only entitled for Rs. 1,320/- being paid towards labour charges during warranty period and only entitled for replacement of Gear Box Set.  Hence this order.

                                                                                      ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No. 2 is herewith directed to refund the labour charges of Rs. 1,320/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 1,000/- within one month from the date of the receipt of this order failing which the said amount of Rs. 1,320/- shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from 21.11.2018 till payment.  Further the O.P. No. 3 is herewith directed to replace the Gear Box Set of the alleged vehicle with a new one within one month from the date of this order and the O.P. No. 2 is directed to extend their cooperation in this regard to both the complainant and O.P. No. 3.

        Parties to bear their own costs.

        Pronounced the Judgement in the open Forum on this the 14^th day of January, 2020.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.